Ex Parte Christie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 27, 2016

11969903 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111969,903 01/06/2008 61947 7590 10/31/2016 Apple - Blank Rome c/o Blank Rome LLP 717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400 HOUSTON, TX 77002 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gregory N. Christie UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P6056US1 (119-0373US1) 1940 EXAMINER OBAYANJU, OMONIYI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): mbrininger@blankrome.com houstonpatents@blankrome.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY N. CHRISTIE, MARCEL MWA VAN OS, STEVE LEMAY, EVAN DOLL, and JUSTIN SANTAMARIA1 Appeal2015-001096 Application 11/969 ,903 Technology Center 2600 Before JEFFREYS. SivIITH, JON ivL JURGOV AN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-001096 Application 11/969 ,903 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 11, and 12, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim 1. A non-transitory program storage device, readable by a processor and having instructions stored thereon to cause one or more processors to: present, on a first user interface of a mobile device, one or more messages that have each been transmitted from the mobile device to a first set of two or more intended recipient devices, wherein the first user interface includes an identification of each of the two or more intended recipient devices for each of the one or more messages; detect that a subset of intended recipient devices in the first set failed to receive a first message of the one or more messages; present a graphical object on the first user interface proximate to the identification, for the first message, of each of the intended recipient devices in the subset of intended recipient devices, wherein the graphical object visually associates the first message with the subset of intended recipient devices that failed to receive the first message; receive a selection of the graphical object; present, in response to the received selection, a second user interface that includes a user interface element to resend the first message; receive an input to resend the first message; and resend the first message to only the subset of intended recipient devices. 2 Appeal2015-001096 Application 11/969 ,903 Windl Fulton O'Neal Prior Art US 2002/0070972 Al US 2005/0041793 Al US 2007 /0224979 A 1 Examiner's Rejections June 13, 2002 Feb.24,2005 Sept. 27, 2007 Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fulton, O'Neal, and Windl. Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fulton, O'Neal, Windl, and Murphy. ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We agree with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants disclose a messaging application on a mobile device for determining whether a message was successfully transmitted to a group of specified recipients. Spec. i-fi-1 4, 22. If the transmitted message fails to reach one of the intended recipients, an indicator is displayed near the failed transmission. Spec. i-fi-122-23; Fig. lB. Figure lB is reproduced below. 3 Appeal2015-001096 Application 11/969 ,903 I -Â·- -Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·- .......... Cat~:er-1i"' 12:34 PM -Â·-Â·Â· ..-----------------,! Greg I :40 To Ev-aq: Ht>:lo Tt,;m-1 144-- J Tc,St<:ve: Hel:o Tea111 106 @ ) 100 10.4 1Â·1a Figure lB above shows touch screen 104 of mobile device 100. Chat area 118 of the touch screen shows a message sent to multiple recipients 140, 142, and 144. Spec. i122. Indicator 146 is shown next to recipient 144, to indicate the intended recipient did not receive the message. Spec. i123. The user can select indicator 146 to display a button for resending the failed message only to the recipient that did not receive the message. Spec. i128. Figure 2B is reproduced below. 4 Appeal2015-001096 Application 11/969 ,903 140 142 144 rÂ·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â· . _....... Ga:riec"i"" Â·12:34PM -Â·-....-: .--~~~~~~~~~~~~1 Greg T<.J:S~~. Hello Tea.m J I I I -t-==,=<,~=,,, T=",,="'=====;:;:;;)-(:;;::s=e=nd;:;:;;)-;! ~ ~ ........___ -~Â· -~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~-~-~-~ ............. ' @ mo 1i8 Figure 2B above shows an interface for resending a faiied message. Spec. i-f 28. After selecting indicator 146, virtual keyboard 102 of Figure lB is replaced with a retry screen including try again button 120 shown in Figure 2B. Spec. i-f 29. If the user selects button 120, failed message 144 is resent to the recipient who did not receive the message. Spec. i-f 28. Claim 1 recites "receive selection of the graphical object," where "the graphical object visually associates the first message with the subset of intended recipient devices that failed to receive the first message," which encompasses a user touching indicator 146 shown in Figure lB. Claim 1 also recites "present, in response to the received selection, a second user interface that includes a user interface element to resend the first message," which encompasses displaying try again button 120 shown in Figure 2B. 5 Appeal2015-001096 Application 11/969 ,903 Appellants contend the combination of Fulton, O'Neal, and Windl does not teach the claimed "receive selection of the graphical object," where "the graphical object visually associates a first message with a subset of intended recipient devices that failed to receive the first message." App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants also contend Windl does not teach the claimed "present, in response to the received selection, a second user interface that includes a user interface element to resend the first message." App. Br. 11-12. The Examiner relies on the combination of Fulton and O'Neal to teach a graphical object that visually associates a first message with a subset of intended recipient devices that failed to receive the first message. Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4--5. Figure 18 ofO'Neal is reproduced below. AMV~ilr ~fi Add Group Groups Add Messa~ r~!~ J M!